Of Foustanelas and Marathons

Since the creation of the modern Greek State in 1821, the average Greek, regardless of where in the world they may find themselves, is torn between two competing versions of Greekness: Hellenism and Romiosini. Hellenism reflects ancient Greek civilization and Western modernity and it is often seen as the opposite of Romiosini which entails the culture that emerged from the Eastern Roman and subsequent Ottoman Empire. 

I have already covered in a previous post some of the political considerations that necessitated the adoption of a strict Hellenic identity by the Greek leadership of the Revolution, many of whom were educated in Western Europe.  The Europeans who came to the aid of the Greeks in their struggle for independence soon realized however, that the peasants fighting the Turks did not fit into the idealized version of warrior heroes, statesmen and poet-philosophers that they envisioned. Jacob P. Fallmerayer, a German liberal, theorized that Greeks were not even related by race to their ancient ancestors:

"The race of the Hellenes has been wiped out in Europe. Physical beauty, intellectual brilliance, innate harmony and simplicity, art, competition, city, village, the splendour of column and temple — indeed, even the name has disappeared from the surface of the Greek continent.... Not the slightest drop of undiluted Hellenic blood flows in the veins of the Christian population of present-day Greece."

The history of modern Greece has been a long struggle to define Greekness; who we are.  After independence and well into the early twentieth century Greeks competed with each other for the soul of Greece. Some would say the struggle continues today. These conflicts included a struggle over the creation of a refined Greek language based on the ancient Attic language versus the use of demotic Greek, used by the majority of the Greek peasantry, which contained Turkish, Arabic and even Persian words. Many educated, Europeanized Greeks looked down upon the peasants and klephts who had fought for independence as products of a "barbaric" past. They saw them as creations of a Turkish occupation during which Turks and Greeks lived side by side. During this time of "togetherness" they reasoned that the Greeks had taken on "oriental qualities." They became corrupt, ignorant, superstitious, lazy, and uncivilized. If Greeks were to become true Greeks they had to get rid of the "Turk" within, even if it meant getting rid of a part of themselves. Even if it meant ignoring their full historical legacy. Many, idealized and identified with a "Hellenic" past, which they transformed into their own concept of true Greekness, in order to fit the model that Western Europeans had shaped of the Greek past. As Kazantzakis writes in Report to Greco: "To gain freedom from the Turks, that was the initial step. After that, later, a new struggle began, to gain freedom from the inner Turk, from ignorance, malice and envy, from fear and laziness, from dazzling false ideas and finally from idols, even the most revered and beloved."

This dichotomy of Greekness was exemplified by attitudes to the wearing of the foustanela. This kilt was worn by the peasants of Greece as well as by the Vlachs and Albanians. For some NeoHellenes it conjured up everything they wanted to reject and to change about the Greek identity. It wasn't until the first Olympic games however, that a strange thing happened. The victory of a young Greek  peasant in the first modern marathon race allowed a new identity to emerge. An identity that was accepting of who we truly were as a people.

"Spiridon Louis was the son of a farmer from Maroussi, now a suburb of Athens. He was known for his running prowess honed by running next to a donkey with which he hauled mineral water to Athens. The Greek public had been very enthusiastic about the Games, but was disappointed in the fact that no track and field event had yet been won by a Greek competitor. The victory in the discus, a classical Greek event, by American Robert Garrett, had been particularly painful. Because of its close connection with Greek historians, the public desperately hoped the Marathon would be won by one of their countrymen."

Baron Pierre Coubertin, the most famous of the first Olympiad organizers describes Louis' entry into the Olympic Stadium:   

"In a moment, as the approach of the victor was signaled, the whole  multitude arose as if moved by an electric current. The thunder of  applause rose across the plain towards the foot of Parnassus, as if to awaken in their subterranean abodes the manes of the their ancestors; It was not simply the accomplished act which provoked these transports, but rather the  pent-up remembrance of the whole glorious past manifested, in that runner, the vision of the Greek (my emphasis). Then, in order to withdraw him  from the dangerous effusion of a delirious crowd, the crown royal and his brother, prince George, carried him away in their arms to the dressing room, and then the enthusiasm rose anew, like an irresistible wave, before the superb picture, which placed side by side, in so graphic a manner, the past and the future. "                                                   

Louis became an instant celebrity, more importantly, a symbol that ignited the Greek imagination. A symbol of palikaria, hardiness, filotimo, honesty, pastoral purity. Symbols as Castoriadis points out, can be very powerful, as much for the things that they imply as the things that they denote.  Invited to the King's Palace, Louis wore the simple attire of a Greek sheperd. Only a few decades earlier, Theodoros Kolokotronis, one of the great heroes of the Revolution, was almost refused entrance to the palace of Greece’s first king, the Bavarian Otho, for wearing a foustanela. This kilt was originally  a southern Albanian outfit worn by Orthodox Albanians (many of whom played an integral role in the fight for Greek Independence) and introduced into Greek territories during the Ottoman occupation of previous centuries.   Professor James Verinis, to whom I indebted to for many of the ideas expressed in this post,  in his paper on Spiridon Louis writes the following:  "In part due to the foustanela he wore to King George’s palace after his win in the first modern Olympic marathon, Spiridon Loues took on the identity of at least three characters in the excitement at the 1896 Games:  (1) a “noble” peasant or shepherd (2) a descendant of the “barbaric” yet now simply honorable klephts of the independence movement, and (3) a“triumphant” Greek Olympic athlete of both modern and ancient proportions."

As a symbol Louis was able to bring together disparate versions of  a purely Greek identity and meld them into something that all Greeks could relate to and be proud of.   In performing his own little miracle by winning the marathon he helped modern Greeks understand that they were truly heirs to a Hellenic and Romeic legacy and by so doing they did not have to abandon either. Within a few months Greece fought a "Thirty Day War" with the Ottoman Empire in Thessaly which ended in a humiliating defeat. Perhaps Greeks found a new confidence and who they were as a people at the first Olympiad but as one contemporary journalist wrote: “Greece combined the appetites of a Russia with the resources of a Switzerland.”  A little over a decade later tiny Greece along with its Serb brothers was to send the Ottomans reeling from the Balkans.   As Nikos Kazantzakis writes:

"The Greek race has always been and still is the race which possesses the great and dangerous prerogative of performing miracles. Just like the powerful, long enduring races, the Greek race may reach the depth of the chasm, and exactly there, at the most critical instant, where the weaker are destroyed, it fashions the miracle. . . . Our entire history is nothing more than a violent, perilous leap from destruction to salvation."

Comments

[Hermes]

Today, the Hellenic-Romaic dichotomy is very old news.

Research in recent decades into the intervening periods of Greek history i.e. Hellenistic, late antiquity and Paleologian renaissance, and the life of ordinary people, shows that they are not diametrically opposed and in some cases are in confluence.

[Stavros]

I'm not so sure it is. Sure we are not arguing about Katharevousa versus Demotic anymore but there are certainly echoes of the Hellenic-Romeic dichotomy and sometimes they have been played out on these pages by you and I. I agree they are not diametrically opposed and in fact, there is much common ground. I just think a lot of Greeks are grappling with identity issues that stem directly from this issue.

There are many modern day Greeks (this is not aimed at you or anyone in particular), in and out of Greece who have forgotten who we are as a people, where we come from, and sadly where we are going. To a great degree I attribute that to a failure to understand our history and how it has shaped us. We can't cherry pick our history. Accept the parts that we like and forget the rest.

I must admit that you have an annoying habit of focusing on the ancient Hellenes to the exclusion of the last two thousand years of Greek history.

[demonax]

The trend in Greece at the moment is to reject both Romoiosini and Hellenism and embrace multicultural European and North American models.

Also, I saw an excerpt from a sermon by the Bishop of Thessaloniki on TV yesterday about patriotism and Skopje, in which he made reference to Plato and Thucydides and urged everyone to read the ancient Greek authors. That there are some in the Church who do not regard everything before the arrival of the Messiah as wretched and worthless is deeply ironic, but if it is the Church which is going to stand up for Hellenism and Romoiosini in the face of those who would like us to ditch both and become like Sweden or Canada, then so be it.

However, I have to admit that it does get on my nerves whenever I see a new $100m museum opening in Greece or the obsession with the return of the Parthenon Marbles or everyone getting their knickers in twist trying to get fire-stricken ancient Olympia ready for the phoney torch ceremony for next year’s Chinese Olympics, when Greek school children are taught by underpaid, badly qualified and demotivated teachers in portakabins and unsafe buildings, with no equipment. The same applies to the Church: in the tiniest village or on the smallest island, it’s terrible to see that the most illustrious and ostentatious building is not the school – far from it – but the church.

I’ve never thought it was a question of either Hellenism or Romoiosini. Clearly, we are the carriers and purveyors of both. It’s a false dichotomy. The thing is not to become slaves to either – to the ancient Greeks or to our Byzantine tradition – and to create something new. Creating something new was the challenge we set ourselves in 1821 – if not before – and there are a lot of modern Greek accomplishments, but we’ve a lot more to do and to offer.

[Hermes]

Stavros, if I remember correctly I have introduced Byzantine achievements such as the Dionysios Areopagite, Strategikon, Manuel Panselinos, Michael Psellus and Neohellenic ones such as Penelope Delta and Cavafy to these forums. However, if I focus more on the Hellenic achievements before 529 AD is because they are qualitatively better and by and large provide better models than later periods. No one can deny that the period before 529 AD was more brilliant than the period between 529AD and 1453AD. Let's forget these arbitrary time periods for a moment. Although Byzantium was spasmodically brilliant the course of time has shown that ancient Hellas continues to fascinate intelligent people. However, just like if I had two sons, and one was more brilliant than the other, I would still love both of them. Likewise, Hellas and Byzantium are beautiful and must be treasured. However, lets not forget on important aspect of the dichotomy. It is unlikely that in Byzantium we could have had this open discussion. It was a closed society with limited internal dialogue. Hellas makes all this possible.

Like you say we cannot cherry pick history. Yes, I agree. History has no personality, does not forgive, does not help the poor and wretched, does not have designs on anyone or anything. Also, we should not impute our personal preferences into history i.e. Taliban George. We should simply and dispassionately study history to provide better understanding of ourselves. If that understanding does not conform to our religious beliefs or whatever then we should not reject it.

A related problem is that this false dichotomy stems from reading non-Greeks intepret our history. They are not doing anything wrong. However, they are intepreting our history through their own frameworks and emphasising and demphasising aspects which they believe are important to them. It is we who read their works and take their intepretation as being true. For example, Williamowitz is a great historian but he was intepreting Greek history so as to form the modern German character. Another example is Victor David Hanson. He is intepreting Greek history in a way that makes insane military ventures to Mesopotamia as the right thing to do. We insanely prefer them to our own due to some inferiority complex put into our heads by Western Europe i.e. why read Greek historians because they must be liars, backstabbers, cheats etc

As for identity problems, I tend to agree with demonax. Most modern Greeks have identity problems not because of some "Helleno-Romaic" dichotomy (most Greeks would have absolutely no idea what we are talking about) but because they are losing their language which stops them from reading their ancestor's writings and organic attachment to their symbols and traditions under the weight of global mass culture. In the face of this monster it would come as a relief for a modern Greek to have some interest in either at least Byzance or Hellas or Neohellas. Who cares.......as long as they do not act like Tupac Shakur or whatever his name is!!

[Stavros]

As usual both of you have been able to put my humble ramblings into some kind of appropriate perspective.

Hermes,

Your assessment of historical interpretation is spot on. I agree that instead of reading and studying our own history we allow others, with their own agendas, to interpret it for us.

Your response puts my annoyance to shame.

Demonax,

The Church has always been at the forefront of maintaining a Greek identity while at the same time accepting the universality of humankind. I would recommend reading Dean Kalimniou's latest post:

http://diatribe-column.blogspot.com/

If we eliminate the Orthodox faith (something the multiculturalists are working hard to achieve) we will eliminate much of the cultural underpinnings of Greek society. The Western Europeans have all but abandoned their religious faith and see where it's got them.

If Greek education is not accomplishing its stated goals it is not due to lack of funds/poor teacher pay/run down schools.
The problem is more basic than that. It is what is being taught and how it is conveyed. The whole system needs a thorough overhaul and the Church is not now or ever has been an obstacle to such reform.

I am not arguing that Greeks are taking sides or even cognizant of this Hellenic-Romeic dichotomy in our Greek identity. A great deal of this is under the surface. Most Greeks I've met however, they cannot be described as multi-culturalists. They are still quite aware of their past.

I agree that Greeks must create new solutions for new problems. Spiridon Louis helped Greeks fashion a new identity which reconciled the Hellenic and Romeic. He was a symbol of a new Greek confidence in who we were as a people. Guys like Melas, Plastiras, Metaxas, and Venizelos were the ones they gave that confidence more than just symbolic expression. I fear however, that it will take another miracle ( as Kazantzakis says) after we have once again stood at the precipice over the abyss.

[Diogenes]

I'd never heard of Fallmerayer, but I've had the same thought myself (that modern Greeks are not even related by race to their ancient ancestors), since Turkish influences remain so strong.

[Stavros]

Diogenes,

I am not a big proponent of racial theories, however, there is a body of evidence to suggest that in fact there is a great deal of racial continuity between ancient and modern Greeks.

That said, we have to admit that time of "togetherness" did a number on the Greek psyche. If you read enough history you will be amazed by some of the similarities between ancient and modern Greeks. Good and bad.

[demonax]

Diogenes, don’t worry about Fallmerayer. His view of ancient Greece as a perfect paradise of ‘physical beauty, intellectual brilliance, innate harmony and simplicity’ is nonsense and so his disappointment that modern Greeks don’t meet these exalted standards and therefore cannot refer to themselves as Hellenes is absurd.

Quarrelsome, egotistical, dishonest, vain, self-indulgent, fickle, capricious. Who does this remind you of, the Greek heroes of 1821, the Greek heroes at Troy as described by Homer in The Iliad or both? You get my point.

S. I don’t think the church is an obstacle to progress in Greece, but I worry about its use of resources and priorities. The church in Cyprus is thinking about setting up its own schools because it thinks standards are not high enough in state schools – actually, they’re quite good; in Greece, alternatively, the church seems far too interested in itself and has forgotten its role. Greece is developing a hedonistic, soft-core culture and the church says nothing. Not good enough. But in relation to education, you’re right, this is not just about resources, but about what is taught and the culture of education – of loving education and wanting to be educated, of loving teaching and wanting to teach.

Have you been to Mystra/Sparta? Here Romoiosini and Hellenism exist side by side and we can appreciate the brilliance of both and feel part of both.

[Stavros]

Demo,

I think part of the problem with the Church in Greece is that it is so tied to the State. This relationship has benefits as well as drawbacks. Sometimes the Church is less than anxious to rock the boat. Your criticism of the Church does have some merit and the Church definitely needs to be out front on social issues. Frankly, I thought all the furor over ID cards was misplaced, there are more important issues like abortion that we need to speak out against as Christians.

I am reminded of the example of the Church Fathers, towering figures such as St Gregory Palamas and Saint John Chrysostom who were not afraid to confront and criticize the Emperors of Constantinople and the nobility.

[Hermes]

Stavros, agreed. I believe that Christianity works best or is truer to itself as a religion and belief system when it is somewhat resistance or at least counterbalancing some of the excesses of the state apparatus or other institutions. This may have something to do with its early history. Some of its best thinking and people has come about under duress and opression.

[Stavros]

Hermes,

After reading your comment I was reminded of Patriarch Pavle, the Serbian Patriarch:

http://www.truthinmedia.org/TruthinMedia/Columns/clip6.html

[Hermes]

Yes, these are the reasons why I do not understand Evangelical Christianity that is most pronounced in the United States. Christianity, if it to be placed on the political spectrum, sits on the old Left. Christianity esnchews money and worldly goods. Christianity is very different from Judaism. Often in conflict. These people are very removed from true Apostolic Christianity. I suppose this is what happens when those barbaric northern Europeans come into contact with the subtle Meditereanean mind.

[Margaret]

"Christianity, if it to be placed on the political spectrum, sits on the old Left."
I agree, Hermes, but it is brave of you to say so here :).

I've found this post and the subsequent discussion really interesting. Perhaps if I lived outside "my country" I'd want to share an identity with my compatriots. As it is, I seem to want to distinguish myself from a lot of them most of the time. Sometimes I think my "British" identity reduces to smiling at references to sticky-backed plastic and washing-up bottles ... which just goes to show how historically/socially/linguistically contextual my national identity is.

[Hermes]

Margaret, why is it brave? It is true. Christianity is anti-estblishment, anti-wealth, anti-individuality, ant-materialism, anti-money and so on. I can understand how Americans on the Bush Right can purport to be Christians but they are usually of the Protestant branch - which is not really Christianity. I am mystified how an Orthodox or Catholic can support the Bush Right. I think their support hinges on conservative social values which the Old Left gave up when it turned into the New Left sometime around the 1960's. However, one has only to follow Bush Right policies for about a week to realise the inherent contradictions with Christianity. The situation is slightly different in continental Europe where conservative left-wing Christianity still exists.

This is a good article..

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/a_tale_of_two_normans_podhoretz_and_finklestein/

Where was that post?

[Hermes]

On a related matter, why are Neocon websites attacking European right of center parties because those parties are opposed to Islamic immigration? Are they really Neocon?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2599

[Margaret]

Hermes,

"This post" referred to this post. That is, the post I was commenting on.

And "brave" because it is something I think that I had not been prepared to say, lest I offend. I don't think you worry about offending people, if your comments about the English on Demonax's site are anything to go by, which probably means you are not brave either (since bravery involves overcoming a fear, I think). So I take that (that is, the "brave" bit) back!

[Stavros]

Margaret,

Your comments are welcome and valued. Please never feel like you have to be reticent in the slightest about putting us in our place when we offend, which is probably often. As for the question of identity, you have nothing to apologize for. The English have much to be proud of and a few things to be ashamed of, just like everyone else. I've said this before, some of the best Greeks I know are people who have not an ounce of Greek blood, and yes some of them happen to be Englishmen by birth.

Loving one's identity isn't about circling the wagons and hating everyone who is not like you. It's about trying to find things about ourselves and others like us that we can be proud of, things that we can pass on to our children. On a human to human level, I don't dislike people simply because they happen to be Turks, Iranians, North Koreans, Evangelical Protestants or Democrats. I would hope that others look at me in the same way.

Greeks have a love-hate relationship with the English and I think it's all quite complicated. When Hermes rants about the Anglo-Saxons I am always reminded of Sir Patrick Leigh-Fermor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leigh_Fermor

http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/19/jan01/downing.htm

Hermo,

Christianity is not compatible with any particular political philosophy even though Christians themselves often do take sides. If I were to agree with your statement about Christianity's leftist orientation, then why would the political philosophy closest to it, i.e. Marxism, spend so much time trying to eradicate it? The Christian "kingdom" is not of this world and most people including Christians have a difficult time with that one.

Evangelicals support Republicans because they are more closely aligned with them on social issues. Fact is that neither American political party is monolithic in nature, with everyone possessing the same positions across the board. I don't think most Evangelicals will vote for Giuliani for example, unless of course they are more worried about Hillary Clinton. I may not agree with an Evangelical Christians on matters of Christian dogma but we may find common ground on issues such as abortion. It's not cut and dry.

BTW, a lot of Neocons are former Democrats. Clinton bombed Serbia. It was the Republicans who were the isolationist party prior to WWII and now he paleoconservatives like Ron Paul, Buchanon and your friend Taki are very much opposed to current policies.

I haven't read you link yet but I suspect that many neocons being Jewish are squeamish about some of the European Rightists given their anti-Semitic past. Personally I think Europeans and Americans need to come together on a great number of fronts.

[Margaret]

Stavros, in the car on the way back yesterday Lola B asked us to explain to her the terms "left" and "right" wing. Trying to explain fairly two very different political persuasions in language a child can relate to is a challenge, but we found our discussion ranging widely over the industrial revolution, workers' rights, unions, immigration, health care, education, defence. But summing them up, it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that one view asked "What's in it for me and my family?" and the other extended a helping hand to those less fortunate without a hint of patronage. Partiality and Equality, if you like. Christians have to take (political) sides - they have to live in the world, not eschew it. Simply because Marxists do not approve of Christianity does not, however, mean that Christ would not have had a "leftist" political orientation. There is no logical progression in your argument.

I often wish Christ had been married with children and had left us with more of an idea how to reconcile our natural partiality for our families with the call of equality. A tradition of unmarried clergy and saints does not help much either. I wrestle with this a lot. I cannot even comfort myself with all the good works I do without pay and in the name of "equality", when I know that it is my husband's good income that probably facilitates my freedom to do those good works.

[Stavros]

Margaret,

I am not suggesting that Christians should ignore or withdraw from what is happening around them. In fact I have always advocated the importance of not just doing good works but also confronting evil even if it means having to fight it.

Nor am I saying that Christians be apolitical. I can't fault Evangelicals or other Christians for taking an active role in politics as long as they are guided by their Christian beliefs. When the Church itself starts getting politically involved that is more problematic. It opens the Church up to influence by politicians. Although the Church can foster reflection on key issues, it shouldn't tell us how to vote or align itself with any particular party.

I don't think Christ was very political, let alone sided with any political group (there were many at the time), especially Marxists if they had been around. Christ was teaching us how to live our lives. If that gives you a sense of direction when you pick a candidate to vote for, all the better. My point was that Marxists or Nazis or Socialists or fill in the blank all promise a better life but seldom deliver. That's because it's really all about power isn't it? Christ was not as focused on the here and now as he was in preparing us for eternity.

He may not have had children or a wife but He certainly had a family, and if one reads the Bible we can see clearly they were like all families, sinful and dysfunctional to a degree. They needed God's help just like the rest of us. The challenge is to love God and others as much as we love our own families, to expand our family if you will.

I don't think we need to be guilty for God's bounty that we enjoy. Being well off is not a sin, what is sinful is not sharing that bounty with others. It sounds to me that you are doing just that.

Hope I don't sound preachy, just repeating things I have had the benefit of hearing from others who are much further up the ladder than I am(I'm barely holding on).

[Hermes]

Stavros, I think your allusion to Marxist resistance to Christianity is false. Margaret (despite being Anglo-Saxon) is right on this one. Hitler was fundamentally opposed to Christianity so does that mean all right wing people cannot be Christians? There is a huge gulf between the Left and radical Left like Marxism just like there is a huge gulf between traditional conservatives and Giovanni Gentile.

I quite like Ron Paul. To a lesser extent Pat Buchanon.

Many European conservative parties and movements are not anti-Semitic at all. It is the pro-Israel fanatics in the Neocons who cannot distinguish between a European conservative and the ideology of Hitler and pre WWII Romanian and Hungarian Fascists.

Lastly, no one said to be guilty about "God's bounty" but equating the implicit love of wealth with Jesus's message is absurd and this is what some Protestant branches attempt to do.

[Stavros]

Hermes,

In Latin America many Catholic priests were also Marxists. I daresay there were a few Nazis that went to Church regularly. That doesn't negate the fact that these political philosophies are opposed to Christianity because it is incompatible with their goals.
Marx viewed all religions, including Christianity, as illusions.

Despite efforts to reconcile Christianity with Marxism, atheism is a basic premise of the Marxist system of thought. Marx himself said that "man makes religion; religion does not make man," and concluded that religion is the "opium of the people," providing an illusion of happiness without true happiness. The few remaining Marxists seem to be found mostly in Western institutions of higher learning.

Marxism is a materialistic worldview; the true Marxist believes that the material world is the ultimate reality, that there is no God beyond the forces of history and nature.

Neither side of the spectrum has a lock on Christians. Actually I don't like labels although now then I make the mistake of using them myself. Most ordinary people are somewhere in the middle.

Lastly, it's not about how much money you have it's how you live your life and what you do with the money. "Focusing" on possessions and wealth is always an impediment and unhealthy. It seems to me we are both saying the same thing.

[Margaret]

Stavros,

I would have liked to write a longer reply to your reply to my comment on your post ... but it's half term. I returned to a book which I have read and re-read over the last twenty years - by John Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today. I think you may find his "evangelical" label off-putting but doubt that the label means quite the same thing on different sides of the Atlantic, especially in the context of an essentially conservative Anglican church. The chapter (in my 1984 edition) on political involvement and social action is very interesting particularly because it includes a historical account of the "reversal" that (evangelical) American Christians made from left to right prior to the 1960s. I knew nothing about that, but had always wondered.

I agree wholeheartedly with almost all of what you say, but disagree on this : "Christ was not as focused on the here and now as he was in preparing us for eternity". I think Christ was very much focused on how we should live during our life on earth, and that social action is part of the role he intended for his followers. I think you believe that too, as it happens, since the rest of your comment says much that.

John Stott reviews five reasons for the left to right shift, the fifth being the spread of Christianity among middle-class people "who tended to dilute it by identifying it with their own culture". Sociological research carried out in the late 1960s on the shift was scathing: "The general picture that emerges from the results presented ... is that those who place a high value on salvation (emphasised) are conservative, anxious to maintain the status quo, and unsympathetic or indifferent to the plight of the black and the poor ... Considered all together, the data suggest a portrait of a religious-minded as a person having a self-centred preoccupation with saving his own soul, an other-worldly orientation, coupled with an indifference toward or even a tacit endorsement of a social system that would perpetuate social inequality and injustice."

I've met a few like that, and guess it could easily creep up on any of us.

If you've come across books similar to John Stott's that you can recommend, I would love to know.

[demonax]

S. As well as abortion in Greece – the numbers of which are appalling – being a moral and politico-demographic issue, there is also the question of women’s health; and I can never understand why – given how bolshie Greek women are – there is not much of a feminist movement in Greece which is banging on about this and other issues. I know you and I are not really qualified to deliberate on the absence of a robust feminist movement in Greece; but I think the marginalisation and subordination of women promoted in and by the church is a factor.

Also, have you ever read Kazantzakis’ The Fratricides – set in Epiros during the civil war, about, if I remember rightly, a priest trying to fulfill his Christian mission by reconciling left and right?

Also Makarios was a self-proclaimed socialist – one of the reasons the US wanted to bring him down – ‘Castro in a cassock’, Cyprus as a ‘Mediterranean Cuba’ and all that.

Here’s what Makarios said to Oriana Fallaci in a 1974 interview: ‘If you're referring to Swedish socialism, not Soviet socialism, I can say I really have nothing against socialism. Among all social systems, it's the closest to Christianity, to a certain Christianity, or at least to what Christian teaching should be. Christianity doesn't favor any social system – it recognizes that any social system, from the capitalist one to the communist, can contain something good. But if I had to choose the best system, or the most Christian system, I'd choose socialism. I said socialism, not communism. And let me add that, in my opinion, the future belongs to socialism. It will end by prevailing, through a kind of osmosis between the communist countries and the capitalist ones. Spiritually it's already happening. The socialist, that is, egalitarian, spirit is permeating all human relationships. Today equality is an almost spontaneous feeling.’

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/makarios%20-%20interview%20with%20fallaci.htm

[Hermes]

Anyway, who cares about Christianity? I live by the values of Homer.

[Margaret]

... Simpson, Hermes. Has to be.